What is a Masonic Offense? A lot of Masons and Non-Masons have used this term, offense or Masonic offense, in various ways, and in a recent conversation with a friend, this came up as a huge question mark for them. Where does the term offense come from and how is it variously applied?

Offend has varied meanings, from extremely strong (“to strike against”) to the fairly mild (“to be displeasing to.”) It can also mean “to commit an illegal act.” In this case, with a Masonic offense, people are referring to this last designation – to break some law, either written or unwritten. What may surprise non-Masons is that Freemasonry has its own jurisprudence.

The legal system of Freemasonry is governed by its specific degrees and dependent upon the structure of each individual Masonic obedience, for example The United Grand Lodge of England is an obedience, or The Honorable Order of Universal Co-Masonry is another. An article on The Masonic Trowel explains, in broad terms for one obedience (a Grand Lodge structure) what that jurisprudence may be. For obediences that have a Supreme Council structure, the written laws and general customs may be different, as may be Masonic Orders that allow all genders. In fact, technically, each Masonic Order has their own set of rules, regulations, and laws.

Then, one must ask again, what is a “Masonic offense?” It seems to be something that is, in general terms, identified by Masonic authors to be a Masonic crime. Different than public and private crimes, where the laws of the country rule, Masonic crimes have to do with a violation of the duties of a Freemason, to the ritual, the constitutions, the by-laws, and to a Freemason’s moral and literal obligations. In other words, any time a Freemason goes against his consecrated and accepted obligations, the rules of his own order, the instructions of his ritual, or the by-laws of his Lodge, he has committed a Masonic offense. He becomes a potential Masonic criminal, subject to the Masonic punishments his order dictates.

What does a Masonic crime look like? Mackey states, on Page 511 of his Masonic Jurisprudence book, “Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offense for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment.” In other words, to willfully ignore or counter a superior’s direction is considered a Masonic crime; likewise would be making fun of them, or disparaging their character to others, in private or public. A Freemason may be censured for arguing with another member in a meeting or for being aggressive during a public study session. Freemasons have been expelled from their orders for divorcing their spouses, having personal fights in public, bringing legal actions against other members, or stealing funds from their Lodges. Expulsions happen due to actual physical or verbal abuse. An act committed just once is enough to have Masonic charges brought forward by the offended member or members.

A question recently was posed during a discussion, “Does this apply to actions outside of the Lodge?” In other words, does Masonic jurisprudence stop at the door the Lodge? The answer is an unequivocal “no.”

Freemasons hold themselves to a high moral code. There are no physical boundaries on being a moral and upright human being, one would hope.

The ritual, moral, and constitutional charges to Freemasons interject into every aspect of a Freemason’s life. The rules of the Order and the dictates of the rituals and Lodge heads do not stop once we’re amongst non-Freemasons. In fact, the very fabric of Freemason’s charges, to help the world be a better place, dictates that they must bring Masonic ideals to the public – to non-Masons. This does not mean that they exemplify the positive and ignore the offenses they do while in public. Freemasons obligate a submission to Masonic discipline; this is a 24×7 task and does not end when the Temple lights are turned off.

In a recent article on Indiana Grand Lodge jurisprudence, the author made an argument for a roll-back of some fundamentally silly “Masonic law” involving a bowling team and the use of Lodge names for bowling teams. He asked, “Is this really a rule for High Moral Conduct?” Or course not. He went on, “There is a reason that there are only Ten Commandments. Breaking these rules results in the loss of your soul.” Masonic law should remain “higher” than common, every day public offenses as Freemasons are working to make the common world better. You can only do that if you’re striving to achieve something better than what you already have.

The above author’s solution also included the more rigorous enforcement of Masonic punishment. “Simplification of the rules. Let lodges govern themselves. Yet, enforce them to the letter. Suspensions and trials should be as much of the common lodge landscape as the preverbal fish fry and degree work. We cannot be a society of greatness until we raise the bar and put it back up where it belongs.” I agree.

Culture of the United States tends to shy away from enforcing laws and rules. In general, there is a fear of retribution or loss of membership, or in some cases, rules are enforced on some and not others. This is a societal problem which permeates our consciousness, Freemason or not. People will leave the group if we actually enforce the rules.

Hogwash.

Freemasons become Freemasons to become better. If a Freemason submits himself to Masonic discipline, he submits himself the the jurisprudence of Freemasonry. Why wouldn’t the officers and leaders of the Lodge enforce those rules and laws? Why be afraid of creating a better society? People will leave groups for various reasons and perhaps someone enforcing the rules, like the Lodge leadership, may cause departures. That is to be expected because Freemasonry isn’t for everyone. A Lodge survives these departures because those that remain love Freemasonry and respect its higher purpose. What the Freemason should expect is that his Lodge hold him and all members to a high standard, to challenge their moral compass always, to entrust them to do the right thing, even if it is difficult or troublesome. This fulfills the basic tenant of Freemasonry: the perfecting of humanity.

In the modern era, we hear the word “industry” and tend to think of large brick buildings, chimneys billowing smoke, workers trudging in through large iron gates to manipulate gears and cogs to produce… something. We might think more progressively of large steel buildings of assembly lines of safety-goggle-bedecked workers, busily whirring a drill gun or acetylene torch as some piece of car-part moves slowly towards its birth. We have to thank the industrial revolution for the transformation of industry from something denoted a typeof work to something that denoted a much larger vision of work itself.

The term “industry” was first noted in the Middle Ages in France, coming from the Latin industria, which means “diligence, purpose.” Mackey noted in his Masonic Dictionary, that the “Medieval Freemasons thought much about and had a wide knowledge of the forms of work. There are some fifty-two of these.” Mackey goes on to reflect that Industry is different from industry, in that industry is just one of the forms of work, “it being the most dramatic, but not the most important.” He provides examples of other forms of work, such as the worker who collects all the important bits and puts them together to produce a “thing,” or the assembly line type of producing goods. Industry, with the lowercase “i” is, to quote Mackey again, “industry was the employment of a very large number of men, tens of thousands in many instances, on one undertaking at one place and at the same time, and they might or might not use machinery.” In other words, a factory is industry but building a skyscraper is also “industry.”

Industry with the capital “I” is more in keeping with the idea of “diligence” and “purpose.” Much as there is a difference between a virtue and Virtue, there appears to be a difference between industry and Industry. It’s funny that sociologically, we classify societies as either “pre-industrial” or post-industrial. Whenever a place has an “industrial revolution,” which usually indicates the influx of machinery to replace human work of hands, we call that an “industrial society.” This may not be incorrect; yet, it smacks of some kind of idyllic life, lazily milking cows, getting up with the sun and sleeping at sunset. It seems to reflect a more pastoral, almost aristocratic sort of life prior to the onslaught of manufacturing as a way of life. A pre-industrial life was generally agrarian and had limited production, with artisans crafting limited items over longer periods of time. In general, communications took place within smaller communities, and villages were far more common than today’s large city and urban living. One might automatically assume a feudal society, with a Lord providing shelter and protection to his subjects, and his subjects providing him the substance to live. While this is true for a good deal of the European Middle Ages, that is only a small part of human history. Even after the advent of the creation of “cities” 10,000 years ago, humans have, for the most part centered around their small community, generally never being bothered by outside events.

To think that this way of life did not have industry is backward; however, it appears that they had was far more Industry than post-Industrial Revolution humankind. There is a certain value in working hard and achieving success into which we put physical labor. Horace said “life grants nothing to us mortals without hard work.” We often speak that platitude to our children or co-workers without really understanding that hard work is more than just “working a lot.” Thoreau “wished to suggest that a man may be very industrious, and yet not spend his time well.” While Thoreau might have been hinting at more of the “purpose” side of Industry, Horace is leaning more toward diligence. They both have one thing in common: the influence of Industry on the human psyche and perhaps, soul. [As a weird aside: an interesting definition of courage is “learned industriousness.”]

One of the most interesting, and perhaps hard to grasp, ideas that we should understand is that the concept of “work” is a fairly modern Western invention. Most cultural and social anthropologists today note that modern people tend to see work as something that obtains value, or has a “yardstick” attached to it, as Erik Schwimmer notes. However, ancient Greek and Roman authors, such as Cicero (Officiis), Xenophon (Cyropaedia), and Horace (Odes), looked at work in more moral and political terms; anyone who would be part of an “industry” for a salary or specie was little more than a slave and not ever worthy of citizenship status. However, if you worked on your own farm or in your own workshop, and brought those goods to the benefit of the community, were seen as an industrious person, a hard worker, and one whose work should be praised. Traders who brought far off goods to the community, and traded them for the communities goods were praised as industrious and good. While the origin of wealth via industriousness was important, it was where that wealth was applied that made all the difference. Community was everything, as was the freedom of depending on others to provide for family. From the time of Ancient Greece to Medieval Europe, very little had changed, save for the advent of larger cities. Still, the agrarian “industriousness” held true.

While working for the wealth of the community and not having to depend on others for your livelihood might seem at odds, they are not. Interestingly, the Freemasons utilized the symbol of the beehive for just such a concept, and Lodges work mainly in the same format. An interesting article on the Beehive in Freemasonry, reprinted from a Masonic research society (AQC, 1923) is located here, on the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon’s website. While the concept industry and the beehive (and their associated bees) may seem to some a Christian or Mormon symbol, its use denoting “Industry” appears to date back to ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome.

Like a beehive, a Freemasonic Lodge is a community of people who have gathered and work for common purpose: to continue to provide an opportunity for others to enjoy Freemasonic teachings. Through diligence, purpose, and Industry, the group prospers. The wealth of the Lodge, the knowledge and learning of working together – is the honey of the beehive. This honey is shared in the community; thus, by diligence and purpose is individual, and his connections, nourished. Another aspect of this beehive concept is that while the individual may gain “wealth” from his Freemasonic work, it is not the reason that the group works together. In other words, the question is not what the Lodge and Freemasonry will do for you – it is what do you, the diligent and purposeful worker, bring to Freemasonry? The bees do their work, reflective of their offices and attention to the quality of the work, and the whole is rewarded. This is not an easy concept for our modern minds, which have been trained to that work is “trading time for money” or “talent for money.” Work is drudgery and work is mundane. Perhaps what we modern humans should focus on is the idea of Industry, not of industry. Perhaps our ancestors were not so off base when it came to the virtue of Industry.

Further interesting information about workers in the ancient world can be found in the article, “Workers of the Ancient World: Analysing Labor in Classical Antiquity,” by Arjan Zuiderhoek, found in Volume 1 Number 3 2013 of the WorkersOfTheWorld international journal. This can be referenced on Academia.edu.

As one of the largest organizations in the world, Freemasonry has weathered its share of criticism. In America, questions have been raised as to whether the fraternal organization qualifies as a “cult.” The Oxford Dictionary defines cult as “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” However, another definition describes a cult as “A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.” Obviously, the definition utilized makes a difference as to which organizations fit the term “cult.” Is Freemasonry a cult?

Sociological Analysis of Cults

The German political economist and sociologist Max Weber is considered to be a founder of Sociology: the scientific study of social behavior, including its origins, development, organization, and institutions. In his book Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Weber describes the role charismatic leaders play in the formation and operations of extreme groups such as cults.

Weber writes about charismatic leaders as possessing a “certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Weber established a way to distinguish different religious organizations, such as churches, sects, and cults. Utilizing a continuum along which religions fall, Sociologists differentiate between protest-like orientation of sects to the equilibrium maintaining churches. The diagram below illustrates a church-sect typology continuum.

Beginning in the 1930s, Sociology was utilized to explore cults within the context of the study of religious behavior. In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices. Sociologist Roy Wallis argued that cults are “oriented towards the problems of individuals, loosely structured, tolerant, non-exclusive” without possessing a “clear distinction between members and non-members” and having “a rapid turnover of membership.”

By sociological typology, cults are new religious groups representing a radical rejection of the teachings and beliefs of established faith traditions. Often resulting during periods of social turmoil, cults tend to operate within a distinct period of time before either collapsing or amalgamating into another larger religious group. Three main characteristics are often used in defining the “cult” status of an organization:

Founded by a charismatic leader, as described by Max Weber

Claim a new revelation or insight from God that deviates from traditional faiths

Viewed with extreme suspicion by society and dominant religions

Freemasonry and Religion

Freemasonry is an ancient system designed to impart morality and ethics and teach mutual service to its members. Utilizing the matrix enumerated above, we can examine whether the organization qualifies as a cult by sociological metrics. Modern Freemasonry is generally traced back to the early 1700s although some groups claim it existed prior to the 18th century and was not founded by a single leader.

Furthermore, Masonry is founded upon traditional faiths and does not espouse any new revelations. Within a Masonic Lodge, many holy texts are revered including the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and the Hindu Vedas. All of these books provide examples of moral truths, such as the Golden Rule, and constitute ethical guides to teach individuals.

Expanding beyond sociology, general definitions of a cult, as listed at the beginning of this article, are tied to whether or not the organization is a religion. Although Masonry expresses a belief in a Supreme Deity and the immortality of the human soul, Freemasonry is not a religion. Each individual is entitled to hold their own view about the nature of God.

Within Freemasonry there are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. In order to join Freemasonry, individuals must believe in God, but they are left to their own choice as to the attributes of God. The renown Free Masonic scholar, Albert Mackey, wrote describing the religious inclusivity of the fraternity by stating: “God is equally present with the pious Hindu in the Temple, the Jew in the Synagogue, the Mohammedan in the Mosque, and the Christian in Church.”

To qualify as a “Religion,” Academic Scholars have established characteristics including, but not limited to:

A Plan of Salvation

A Theology

Dogmas

Sacraments

Clergy

Freemasonry lacks the tenets which define an organization as a “Religion.” Instead, Masonry seeks to make good individuals better through education, improvement, and service. While containing religious elements, Masonry is also a fraternal organization that encourages morality, charity, and philosophical studies. It has no clergy, no sacraments, nor a prescribed path of salvation. Moreover, Masonry rejects dogma and inspires individuals to utilize reason to search for Truth.

Among Freemasons, discussions and debates on social, philosophical, or religious questions help in understanding the universality of mankind and inspiring the intellectual development. Such discussion enable all members to reach for a greater understanding of themselves and Humanity in the pursuit of fulfilling their duties as Freemasons.

In Universal Co-Masonry, those duties include: to think high, to do well, to be tolerant to others, to search after truth, and to practice liberty under law, fraternal equality, justice and solidarity. Utilizing builders’ tools as symbols, Freemasonry teaches basic moral truths that enable individuals to meet in harmony and be charitable.